• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

4-To-4 Supreme Court Decision - What it means.


Not surprising that the Huffington Post would try to politicize a "no decision" from SCOTUS in a minor banking case from a lower court ruling. HuffPost has waited for this to happen for what...10 days? We don't even know which way each of the justices voted. Their boy Obama will not likely get his way. Perhaps HuffPost should try to restrain their "I told you so" until something more important comes up. Even a 4-4 decision on firearms or abortion would not be the end of the world and could be reviewed once the SCOTUS is in full attendance.
 
Suppose that one of those 4-4 ties upholds a lower court ruling that places a restriction on firearms?

Then it can be retried in the future. I don't necessarily support the ruling but I don't see how the tie can be broken in any fair way.
 
Then it can be retried in the future. I don't necessarily support the ruling but I don't see how the tie can be broken in any fair way.

And if the lower ruling is upheld in one state, other states will follow that example and base their gun control laws on the one that was upheld because the Supreme Court tied.
 
And if the lower ruling is upheld in one state, other states will follow that example and base their gun control laws on the one that was upheld because the Supreme Court tied.

And once the Supreme Court has nine members it can be reheard. In the meantime it's only law in the lower court's jurisdiction just like normal cases that don't make it to the Supreme Court.

What's your proposed solution to breaking a 4-4 tie?
 
And once the Supreme Court has nine members it can be reheard. In the meantime it's only law in the lower court's jurisdiction just like normal cases that don't make it to the Supreme Court.

What's your proposed solution to breaking a 4-4 tie?

I don't have a solution beyond appointing the replacement for the empty seat on the Supreme Court.

I am just asking other people why would they settle for somthing like a tie.
 
I don't have a solution beyond appointing the replacement for the empty seat on the Supreme Court.

I am just asking other people why would they settle for somthing like a tie.

Because we have to. There's no fair way to break an even tie until there's another member.
 
There is a way: pressure the senate to hold hearings and give a up or down vote for the nominee.

and if the vote it down, then you have to wait for another nominee. it might be awhile. its the process we have. there have been many tie votes in the past either due to a justice recusing themselves from a particular vote or because a justice was out on medical. In 1985 there were 7 tie votes while justice Powell was out for months having surgery.
 
Have you seen any changes yet in cherry-picking Appeals Courts with this 4-4 USSC ?

none whatsoever but I don't watch the appellate courts like a Hawk, as I used to do. we used to get the slip opinions from the 6th every couple weeks in our office
 
The current situation is that we're probably going to be dealing with a court that would uphold that kind of thing anyway. Unless we somehow or other get a President Cruz the next nominations to the court will be problematic for gun rights.

How could they get around the "shall NOT infringe.." wording? That seems quite definitive to me!
 
Not surprising that the Huffington Post would try to politicize a "no decision" from SCOTUS in a minor banking case from a lower court ruling. HuffPost has waited for this to happen for what...10 days? We don't even know which way each of the justices voted. Their boy Obama will not likely get his way. Perhaps HuffPost should try to restrain their "I told you so" until something more important comes up. Even a 4-4 decision on firearms or abortion would not be the end of the world and could be reviewed once the SCOTUS is in full attendance.

Oh, so if it comes from Fox you'll buy it.

Gotcha...and it's Obama's fault...got it.
 
none whatsoever but I don't watch the appellate courts like a Hawk, as I used to do. we used to get the slip opinions from the 6th every couple weeks in our office

After fishing all day with my very close friends, the NRA guys, I once again wound up to the rightist POV of them on CC in schools.

When you get some time, I'd like to hear your view on "Home Rule" in schools.

I see it as whatever the BOE votes, in CLOSED SESSION of course.
I will do my leg work also, speaking with my friends on the BOE to see how the law has changed .
 
Something happened in the Supreme Court that is disturbing as hell to me. The first 4 to 4 decision was made since Scalia's death.

A 4 to 4 decision made by the S.C. means: The ruling sets no nationwide precedent and leaves the lower-court ruling as the final decision in the case.

This could have some profound outcomes and impacts for all concerned based cases ruled on without the 9th Justice. Talk about an opportunity to do some serious Judicial Activism.
Correct, but be careful what you wish for, you are not the only one that can play the courts, meaning you might not like the end results. Reminds me of when some screamed that the States should run their own business, regardless of the Fed laws and regs, then their or another States did something that they disagreed with then those same people claim it should be the Feds that have the final say, opps.
 
How could they get around the "shall NOT infringe.." wording? That seems quite definitive to me!
It's not so much how they can get around "shall not be infinged"; they're lawyers, after all, and black is white, up is down with suitable incentive. No, the real question is how can they get around it with a straight face or an ounce of self respect. But, I guess lawyer answers this as well.
 
How could they get around the "shall NOT infringe.." wording? That seems quite definitive to me!

well lots of Bannites claim the second amendment's GRANT OF RIGHTS is limited which is based on the idiotic premise that we only have those rights that are positively stated we have when in reality the second amendment affirms that the federal government NEVER had any power to act in this area

that was obvious until the scum in the FDR administration decided they needed a federal power so they could pander to the public. that caused all sorts of machinations and contortions by courts, politicians and lawyers to try to limit the blanket prohibition on federal action
 
Correct, but be careful what you wish for, you are not the only one that can play the courts, meaning you might not like the end results. Reminds me of when some screamed that the States should run their own business, regardless of the Fed laws and regs, then their or another States did something that they disagreed with then those same people claim it should be the Feds that have the final say, opps.

Oh, I'm not wishing for anything but a full S.C. with 9 Justices...

4 and 4...muy malo.
 
How could they get around the "shall NOT infringe.." wording? That seems quite definitive to me!

They've already done it. The NFA was a HUGE infringement but it's stood.
 
Exactly why the HuffPost made "so much ado about nothing."

It's not a much ado about nothing situation...

"Ties" are a huge waste of time and resources. And there's some important S.C. cases pending. If they are heard now and wind up in the 4 and 4 category - the problem is making those cases sit on the backburner with no specific timeline for these cases to be reheard. Meanwhile the lower court's ruling will have to serve as the standing decision. Depending on the case, the lower court's decisions might be causing more harm than good.
 
Oh, I'm not wishing for anything but a full S.C. with 9 Justices...

4 and 4...muy malo.
Evening Removable Mind, while you wait for 9 jurists once again, our founding we had just 6 and did just fine.
 
Something happened in the Supreme Court that is disturbing as hell to me. The first 4 to 4 decision was made since Scalia's death.

A 4 to 4 decision made by the S.C. means: The ruling sets no nationwide precedent and leaves the lower-court ruling as the final decision in the case.

This could have some profound outcomes and impacts for all concerned based cases ruled on without the 9th Justice. Talk about an opportunity to do some serious Judicial Activism.

There is a way: pressure the senate to hold hearings and give a up or down vote for the nominee.

And this is exactly what the article is intended to do. Get people all upset so that they pressure the Senate into accepting a nominee.

Of course what they don't tell you is that its actually not uncommon for lower court ruling to stand because of a tie. We survived those times just fine. We'll survive this one also.

The following gives some history....

Ties in the Supreme Court of the United States

Maybe it will calm some minds down.
 
well lots of Bannites claim the second amendment's GRANT OF RIGHTS is limited which is based on the idiotic premise that we only have those rights that are positively stated we have when in reality the second amendment affirms that the federal government NEVER had any power to act in this area that was obvious until the scum in the FDR administration decided they needed a federal power so they could pander to the public. that caused all sorts of machinations and contortions by courts, politicians and lawyers to try to limit the blanket prohibition on federal action

Odd, Justice Scalia, revered patron saint of conservative 'logic', was on record as saying no right is without limits... :shock:

Fact is the 2nd A, is poorly worded, with a ton of commas. What the ardent 2nd A ahhhh supporters try and do is just use one fragment of the amendment to supersede all the other parts... :doh

As far as FDR and his firearm regulations- just how did those laws and court rulings 'pander to the public'??? :peace
 
Something happened in the Supreme Court that is disturbing as hell to me. The first 4 to 4 decision was made since Scalia's death.

A 4 to 4 decision made by the S.C. means: The ruling sets no nationwide precedent and leaves the lower-court ruling as the final decision in the case.

This could have some profound outcomes and impacts for all concerned based cases ruled on without the 9th Justice. Talk about an opportunity to do some serious Judicial Activism.

Republican obstructionism and general insanity will cost them the Presidency, Senate and maybe, just maybe, the House. So...figure this is just the first step towards a much brighter future.
 
Odd, Justice Scalia, revered patron saint of conservative 'logic', was on record as saying no right is without limits... :shock:
...

That only applied to American Indians who claimed smoking pot was part of their religion. ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom